T ridership at record numbers
By adamg - Mon, 07/28/2008 - 8:18am.
It's amazing what record gas prices will do. Of course, the problem is that everybody's favorite strapped transit authority can't really increase capacity to handle all those people easily, but, as the Globe reports (read to the very bottom), Dan Grabauskas is willing to consider removing seats to squeeze in more people. Can Japanese-style pushers be far behind? Hmm, does Dan have any carpoolers in his SUV? Could he fit a couple more in his trunk?
- Add new comment |
| 
| 
For years we have been told
For years we have been told to take the T , take the T, take the T! Now people are paying attention and the T cant handle it, great. The problem is many of these "new" riders have been away from the system for a long time, and some are brand new to the system and the current state of affairs may scare them away when/if the price for gas goes down. I myself have actually stopped taking the T because it takes too long for me to get to work now. Ever since the ridership suge my commute time expanded an extra 20 minutes due to bus shortages. Its now more economical and comfortable for me to drive in to work...
Meanwhile ...
People getting fed up with the T are grabbing their bikes more often ... or riding bikes to the train stations (if you can lock to it at Alewife, there is a bike attached to it).
I am so not looking forward to the fall ... when the students and vacationers all return at once, it won't be pretty.
One thing I noticed with the commuter rail: more people riding the reverse commutes and mid-day and late runs. If that is most of the increase, maybe it won't be so crushed come September.
Scooter Time!
I just bought a sub-50cc scooter for this exact reason. The B Line combined with either the Red Line going over the Longfellow or the 1 Bus at Hynes just plain wore me out. I was going to start a blog called "About an hour" which detailed all the wierd escapades the MBTA took me on each day; the title stems from the fact that it takes about an hour to get from any point A to point B no matter how close or far in the system.
I say bring on the students and vacationers! Just leave me a little room on the right to pass any of them in their cars.
SCOOTERS ARE NOT BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
http://wweek.com/editorial/3240/7867
His 1968 Piaggio Gran Turismo, with a two-stroke, 150-cc engine, registered 4,900 parts per million of hydrocarbons and 8.6 percent carbon dioxide emissions.
a 2006 MotoFino 150T-10D with a four-stroke engine, courtesy of Prestige Motors in Southeast Portland. The MotoFino kicked out 168 ppm of hydrocarbons and 3.1 percent CO2.
One of Fitzgibbons' customers, Shayne Weinstein, offered up for testing his more modern two-stroke, a 2005 Stella also made by Piaggio. Its levels of 1,100 ppm of unburned hydrocarbons and 7.1 percent CO2 fell in between the older two-stroke engine and the four-stroke.
Sitting down?
As for the SUV, we borrowed WW publisher Richard Meeker's 2006 Subaru Tribeca. The six-cylinder engine in Meeker's SUV pumped out less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbons and 1 percent CO2. In other words, the two-stroke scooter WW tested produced about 490 times the hydrocarbons and more than eight times the Co2 of the SUV.
Or, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/30_of_americans.php
Even though they use far less gas,
motorcycles and scooters do not have emissions controls like cars. The EPA states that motorcycles prior to 2007 models may produce several times more pollution than a car. Two-stroke scooters (most of the cheap ones) can make up to twenty times the pollution of a car.
That comment is backed by http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/newsletters/civil/enfalert/scooteralert0801.pdf
EPA studies show that motorcycles have much higher
emissions than cars. A motorcycle emits as much hydrocarbon in 10 miles as a car driven 850 miles. Uncertified Class I motorcycles may emit three to five times as much hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide as similar certified Class I motorcycles. These emissions form smog and contain toxic compounds such as benzene.
who cares about the
who cares about the environment? Not me. I like the fact I can get downtown in 10 minutes on my scooter and park anywhere.
You are so off-base
I wasn't talking about environmental impact at all. I was simply talking about my avoidance of the MBTA due to increasing commute times due to capacity use that's occuring now that people are flocking to the T.
But now that you bring it up anyways, my four-stroke engine is at least 3 times smaller than the smallest one you pointed to. On top of that, Piaggio makes their 50cc scooters Euro2 emissions-standard compliant.
Now, let's address the "evidence" you link to. The first "article" abuses the facts. They tested completely non-equivalent scooters, only one of which was a four-stroke, and then compared them to a car based on ppm (Parts Per Million) and concluded that they fared worse...but the engine sizes between the scooters and the car are completely different meaning that exhaust volume is completely different. If the scooter puts out 100 ppm of something but only puts out 1 million parts total in 10 minutes, then it put out 100 parts of the bad item total in 10 minutes of running the engine.
100 bad ppm * 1 million total parts = 100 bad parts total
But the car puts out 10 ppm and puts out an exhaust volume of 10 million total parts (10x the engine size, 10x the exhaust volume) in the same 10 minutes. This equates to 100 bad parts in 10 minutes...the same as the scooter not 10x better.
10 bad ppm * 10 million total parts = 100 bad parts total
In actuality, the 2006 Subaru Tribeca being compared to the scooters has a 3000 cc motor, 20x the size of the 150 cc motors compared to is and 60x the size of my 50 cc scooter!
If my scooter is putting out 60 ppm hydrocarbons (1/3rd of the 168 claimed for the 2006 4-stroke scooter), then the Tribeca has to put out less than 1 ppm to compare accurately because it's putting out 60x the exhaust in the same amount of time as my scooter! In reality it was only capable of under 10 ppm which is 10x worse than the comparable amount. So, no, the SUV isn't environmentally better than my scooter.
You then go on to link to the treehugger.com blog entry that actually says:
But you quoted a comment from some other user with no reference. Your "back-up" for that comment is a 2005 discussion of unregulated imports that also states that in 2006 the EPA started requiring emissions guarantees on imported motorcycles to crack down on pollution from illegal imports.
How about quoting a far more recent article from June 11, 2008 in the LA Times that states:
The article goes on to say that the end resulting standard will still be slightly worse than a car or SUV (for highway motorcycles with larger engines and no catalytic converter or other technology capable of helping control emissions). But the real problem is still large unregulated diesel vehicles and illegal imports from China.
Now, back to my Fly 50 scooter, it actually has a two-way catalytic converter, thus reducing its hydrocarbon and CO output compared to those that you're quoting above that don't.
Finally, I spend a lot less time idling at lights; I don't hit inefficient highway speeds where cars waste fuel just to keep going fast; I don't burn extra gas for amenities like air-conditioning, playing DVDs, or powering accesories; I don't circle the block looking for parking; and I don't use the scooter for long travel better suited for a car or short trips better suited for walking.
If the MBTA could get me from home (say, Brighton Center) to work (Kendall Square or BUMC) in 20 minutes, then you'd find me crammed in with everyone else saving the planet to the maximum extreme possible. In the meantime, my scooter is the next best environmental option with it's sub-50 cc engine size, four-stroke action, catalytic converter green-as-possible self.
owned
owned
Four Stroke versus Two Stroke
Huge difference. Most older two stroke scooters smoke so much they embarass your lawnmower. Next time I see one using the bike lane, I will be tempted to follow it (if I can still breathe) and feed it a couple packets of starbucks sugar to get it off the road.
Four stroke, tiny engine, cat converter? Huge difference. Good pick Kaz. One note, however: Euro 2 is way back to 1996 ... even India is now at Euro 3 and will pick up Euro 4 in a couple of years. Euro 5 is just now coming on line in the EU.
Interesting cherry picking above, I must say. Or more fruit salading - apples, oranges, old stuff, new stuff, two stroke, no cat converter ...
(now back to editing that report of air pollution and health in Post-reunification (former east) Germany - the part where they junk the two-stroke Trabi's and all go out and buy Audis and VWs)
Euro standards
Good pick Kaz. One note, however: Euro 2 is way back to 1996.
Thanks, I believe most people will end up opting for similar engines/emissions purely because of the regulations for over-50 cc "motorcycles" compared to the under-50 cc "mopeds". Thus, if the MBTA is failing you, it's Scooter Time.
As for Euro standards, I know they've progressed further, but then again they are specifically targeted to automobiles and not cycles. As I understand it, Europe only just applied Euro2 standards to sub-50 cc engines on 1/1/06 (50cc+ motors changed to Euro3 at the same time).
As I also understand it, the Piaggio 250cc QUASAR engine is Euro3 compliant and has 3-way catalytic conversion to account for NOx conversion. I don't know of any motorcycle or scooter that can handle Euro4 or Euro5 simply because the technology used by automobiles to handle the increased requirements is not possible to install on a cycle engine. Then again, we can go back to the smaller engine sizes and point out that over the same amount of time the cycle is going to put out far less exhaust volume, so even meeting Euro2 or Euro3 standards is pretty good and the focus should remain on the real "black cloud" makers as well as the extremely small relative numbers of scooters/cycles compared to cars, trucks, and SUVs.
Swirly, I'll make sure to
Swirly,
I'll make sure to lock up the brakes in my nasty 2-stroke scooter after I cut in front of you in the bike lane next time. Its all of our world, learn to share!
Share the Air!
Two stroke anythings are not allowed in many places at all - not even lawnmowers and leaf blowers - because they belch amazing amounts of emissions, at both the local and airshed level.
The oldest and largest trucks accelerating in low gear under load and spewing black smoke are nowhere near as bad as a two-stroke engine.
Stay out of the bike lane with that asthma-inducing lawnmower wannabe, please.
Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I
Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I switched to synthetic oil, you couldn't even tell its a stroker if not for the noise. I have a legal right to drive in the bike lane. you do not have a legal right to vandalize my property. I win.
Can't Tell?
I'll send this to my buddies at NESCAUM. They are watching you scooter heads and could use a good laugh. You are still burning oil and creating nasty emissions, just less smelly ones.
No, I won't sugar your tank - if only because it might not do anything but make it smokier - I'm just fed up with quasi-legal smoke bombs thinking they are bikes.
I'm not saying its cleaner
I'm not saying its cleaner per se. Its just that you wouldnt know the difference.
You want to try to get a
You want to try to get a bike across the Tobin Bridge, or maybe I should use Route 99 instead lol. I dont live in the most bike friendly habitat, in fact I dont encounter those mythical creatures until I cross over from the North Shore. It just isnt feasible to get from here (North Shore) to Boston/Cambridge by bike.
Multi Modal Possibilities?
Rt. 99: =:-0
That said, you could try multi-modal, if only as a backup for days when your car is kaput. Many buses take bikes on board now, and I take my folding bike on the commuter rail all the time.
Point taken, I vaguely
Point taken, I vaguely remember signing a peition to get our local bus service to put bike racks on the front (eh why the hell not, doesnt cost me anything) I will have to see if they ever put those in.
Biking isnt my thing, and the terrain in this area is quite rough, but I can see how someone who is a bike person and used to multi modal transporting and what not would be able to pull it off, although I would suspect that most bike people would find themselves on the other side of the Charles River from here anyway.
Rt 99
Ain't all bad. I've ridden my bike from Everett to Newbury St and Rt99 was the least of my concerns. Admittedly, I rode the sidewalk for that stretch of road, but it could definitely be worse.
I dont blame you for riding
I dont blame you for riding the sidewalk there, its not like anyone walks down it anyway.
This is the one thing I
This is the one thing I agree with. Especially the ulta-small trolleys on the green line.
There should be a small number of seats in the front for the elderly and disabled, but that should be it. They're just too small and the seats themselves cause a lot of the bunching up around doors.
Read this article this morning on the train
...which was more than an hour late into Boston. And I complained Friday when I was 45 minutes late. Should have known better.
Does this vast increase in ridership really help when the MBTA has to refund more fares because of the chronic lateness of their trains and buses?
more trains...
Why not just run more trains? I know on my line, the C, if I get up late (I'm usually on a train pre-traffic so I don't get bothered by all this) then not only do the trains fill up quickly, but they run too infrequently for the number of riders.
Add to that the fact that too many people turn to (or are to begin with) complete morons and don't move to the back, or stick themselves as far from the doors as possible when they want to get off at Kenmore, thus having to push their way through all the people on the train to the Park/Gov't stops.
Oh, and the whole no opening of the rear doors policy doesn't help either.
All in all, the T is run by a bunch of idiots. Too bad its a government program and it won't improve any.
Can't run more trains. Not
Can't run more trains. Not enough capacity in the central subway.
Not quite
Too bad its a government program and it won't improve any.
It's a semi-private authority. Not quite government enough to answer directly to the people who use it. Not quite private enough to want to run efficiently to turn a profit. It's the absolute worst of both worlds.
What I want to know...
...is why all trains don't go to Lechmere. While I don't think the T is "run by a bunch of idiots," I don't understand this phenomenon.
I'm tired of waiting for 4 or 5 Gov't Ctr. trains, and perhaps, once in a blue moon, a North Station train or 2 pass by before I get a Lechmere.
because there are 4 lines
because there are 4 lines converging into one tunnel. Say they run one train on the branches every 4 minutes. While trains are nice and spaced out on the western branches, if we funneled them all to lechmere, there would be a train coming to and going from Lechmere every minute. Now not only does Lechmere not need that level of service, but one hiccup (say the time people unload and load takes too long a few times along the way) and youve got a disastrous traffic jam.
Yes
I understand that logic to an extent. But if one in four trains is all that picks up throngs of people, that's going to create a hiccup in of itself. Have you ever ridden one of the Lechmere- or North Station-bound trains? They are almost always packed, and take a long time for passengers to board, since they come so infrequently.
The least they could do is increase the number of trains to North Station, one of the major transit hubs in the...well, Hub. And Commuter Rail trains are (theoretically) on a timetable, so there should be regular service there at the very least.
North Station doesn't have a loop
So every train that terminates there must pull into the yard beyond it, stop and have the operators change ends then head out on the outbound track. This means you can't send too many trains that way.
Lechemere is pretty short on space as it is. I couldn't imagine sending another line up that way.
Yes, but...
...within the past couple years, they did a complete re-vamp of N. Station; how did they not forsee the idea of connecting all inbound Green Line trains with one of the major terminals in downtown Boston?
And although I guess I will submit that the ridership to Lechmere does not warrant every train to go there, I hardly agree that the yard is short on space. The station itself is a piece of bleep, but there are always trains sitting there, and plenty of routing space.
How freakin' wonderful.
But at a time when people are forced to squeeze into rush-hour trains in Boston, the agency is willing, Grabauskas said, to consider just about anything, including, possibly, seatless cars. "It certainly is an idea with some merit."
Ooh, will we all get to moo when crammed into these cattle cars?
Truly this is an idea with some merit, if what you're going for is finally admitting you treat your passengers like cargo and not like passengers.
What happened to running
What happened to running 3-car trains on the green line? And it seems every other E-line trolley is a single car.... WTF? you can gain alot more space that way than taking out all the seats.
But I'm all for subway-style seating on the trolleys, rather than bus-style.
And wouldn't the green line run faster if trains had the right of way at the north station tunnel rather than the 5 workers that walk through there per day? Surely it must be the only stop sign in a "rapid transit" tunnel on earth. Likewise, why must the line be synched so that a train slows down, and often stops for half a second, just to get the green light when entering an otherwise empty station?
Hmm.
What happened to running 3-car trains on the green line?
Well, there's all the construction at Arlington and Copley. I wonder if there's enough room on the platforms for a 3-car train right about now.
Which will then be followed
Which will then be followed by construction at Government Center.
3 car trains will not be happening again for a long time.
Chicago isnt the only city
Chicago isnt the only city doing it. San Francisco BART is also removing seats to increase capacity.
They need to add more early trains. The first train of the day is always packed, which tells me the system needs to start up 20 minutes earlier.
exactly
Another reason they need to start earlier is cause some people have job early in the morning and can't get there on time. My husband leaves the house at 5am walks to Malden Center cause they're aren't any buses that early to take him there. The catches the first train and switches to the 47 bus at Ruggles cause the CT2(at Sullivan) doesn't run that early and doesn't get to memorial drive area til 6:15am. He's tried every possible way to get there but with some service not running that early and the other service starting later its impossible.
The reason for the need? The train is packed with it goes 1 stop from Oak Grove to Malden Center.
grasping at straws
My question is, when they take out seats, are they going to leave anything to hang on to, or will they just rely on the pressure of all those other bodies keep people upright, like the central section in Breda green line trolleys where there's nothing to hold?